Radeon R7 M260 vs Iris Pro Graphics P580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics P580 and Radeon R7 M260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Pro Graphics P580 outperforms R7 M260 by a whopping 293% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 646 | 1054 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.03 |
| Power efficiency | 23.83 | no data |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT4e | Topaz |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 11 June 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 576 | 384 |
| Compute units | no data | 6 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 940 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 75.60 | 23.52 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.21 TFLOPS | 0.7526 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 9 | 8 |
| TMUs | 72 | 24 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
| Mantle | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 50−55
+285%
| 13
−285%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 61.46 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+84.8%
|
30−35
−84.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+190%
|
27−30
−190%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+250%
|
4
−250%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+84.8%
|
30−35
−84.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+367%
|
3
−367%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+84.8%
|
30−35
−84.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+363%
|
8−9
−363%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+1000%
|
5−6
−1000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics P580 and R7 M260 compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 285% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 1900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Iris Pro Graphics P580 surpassed R7 M260 in all 43 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.79 | 1.22 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 11 June 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Iris Pro Graphics P580 has a 292.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Pro Graphics P580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
